FCA lifts four LIBOR and EURIBOR bans after the Court of Appeal quashes convictions

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has revoked the industry bans of four former traders convicted in the LIBOR and EURIBOR prosecutions: Colin Bermingham, Philippe Moryoussef, Jonathan Mathew and Christian Bittar. It has also removed the related Final Notices from its channels.

The FCA said in a statement on 16 October that the convictions “formed the basis on which the FCA took its action”. As they have now been overturned by the Court of Appeal, it “will take no further action against these individuals in relation to this matter”.

How the cases unwound

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has kept a running record of the litigation on its statement page.

• July 2025: the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. It found that the trial judge’s legal directions to the jury had been incorrect. The SFO decided a retrial was not in the public interest, noting among other things that the defendants had already served prison sentences. The FCA then ended its action against Hayes, who had referred its decision to the Upper Tribunal, and revoked Palombo’s ban, which had applied since November 2022.
• August 2025: the SFO said the same jury directions may have affected the trials of Mathew, Jay Merchant, Alex Pabon, Moryoussef and Bermingham, so their convictions “may be considered unsafe”. It considered the convictions of Peter Johnson and Bittar, both of whom pleaded guilty, to be safe.
• 7 October 2026: the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions of Mathew, Merchant, Pabon, Moryoussef and Bermingham. The SFO did not oppose those appeals.
• 9 October 2026: the court also overturned Bittar’s conviction for conspiracy to defraud, despite his guilty plea. “We argued for a different outcome but respect the court’s decision,” said Jason Williams, head of division at the SFO.

The SFO’s original investigation led to nine convictions of senior bankers for fraud offences. Two pleaded guilty and seven were convicted by juries. On the SFO’s own account, of those nine only Johnson’s conviction has not been reported as quashed.

The SFO maintains that the Supreme Court found “ample evidence on which a properly directed jury could have convicted” Hayes and Palombo.

Why it matters

For compliance and surveillance staff, the LIBOR cases shaped the post-2012 approach to benchmark submissions, trader communications and conflicts. That framework is not affected by this outcome; benchmark regulation, submitter controls and market-abuse rules remain in place. The legal lesson is narrower but important: how a jury is directed on dishonesty and the purpose of a submission can decide a prosecution.

Enforcement lawyers will expect defendants in future manipulation and spoofing cases to examine trial directions closely, citing the Hayes and Palombo judgment. For the FCA, revoking the bans and withdrawing the Final Notices shows how far its prohibition orders depend on the underlying criminal findings when it relies on them instead of building its own case.

Sources

• FCA, “LIBOR/EURIBOR-related bans”, 16 October 2026 — https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/libor-euribor-related-bans
• Serious Fraud Office, “Response to Supreme Court judgment” (updates of 7 and 9 October 2026) — https://www.gov.uk/government/news/response-to-supreme-court-judgment
• FCA, statement on Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo — https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/discontinuance-proceedings-tom-hayes-revocation-carlo-palombos-prohibition-order